In this essay I will discuss the ways in which we as individuals need protection from the media and the implications of providing it.

Authors Avatar

Ben Vidavski

Contempary Issues in Media Policy.

Essay 1.

In this essay I will discuss the ways in which we as individuals need protection from the media and the implications of providing it. Firstly though, I will look at the ways we can protect ourselves from the media and give some examples of when people have needed protection from it.

The Press Complaints Commission is an independent body which deals with complaints from members of the public about the editorial content of newspapers and magazines. But this is a fairly new committee that was only established in 1991 after a number of case were complained about to the government by some people in the industry and the general public.

Probably the best example of this was when the actor Gordon Kaye, best know as Renee from the 80’s sitcom “’Allo ‘Allo” was being treated in hospital after a car crash when a Daily Sport reporter and photographer burst into his room. There was no law to protect privacy at the time, but the Kaye incident was the catalyst that led directly to the creation of the editors' code of practice and the setting-up of the PCC (Press Complaints Commission). After this incident the government set up the Calcutt Committee to look at the law on privacy.

The Report of the Calcutt Committee was published in 1990. It recommended the setting up of a new Press Complaints Commission in place of the Press Council. The committee found two major factors that forced a change.

  • Firstly, that tabloid rivalry for ‘celebrity exclusives’ had led to a fierce competition that should be controlled.
  • And secondly, that public opinion was changing to start to sympathise more with people in traumatic situations.

 

The Press Complaints Commission's Code of Practice warns against intruding into the lives of those suffering from 'grief or shock', children, patients in hospitals, victims of sexual assault, and photographing 'individuals in private places without their consent', especially where there is a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'.

Now it seems that those seeking therapy may be added to the list of those considered 'vulnerable' too, as in the Naomi Campbell case. In 2002 Naomi Campbell was pictured ‘allegedly’ coming out of a drug rehabilitation centre. Campbell had previously denied in the press that she took drugs. The newspaper argued that because of her anti drugs campaign, the fact that she herself was a drug addict made her a hypocrite and therefor the story was of public interest.

Although she accepted that the Mirror could publish the facts that she had a drug problem and was getting therapy to address this. She argued that it was not acceptable for the Mirror to publish the exact details of her therapy, including details of her attendance at Narcotics Anonymous sessions and neither was it acceptable for them to publish covert photos. Although Naomi won the case and the judge awarded her £3,500 damages for articles in the Mirror exposing her treatment for drug addiction, although he later branded her a liar when she denied under oath that she had been rushed to hospital for a drugs overdose.

Join now!

This was a very important win confirming that even the most publicity-driven celebrities now have the right to keep some parts of their lives private. But the ruling failed to create a new law of privacy, and confirmed that celebrities must rely on the existing law of confidentiality, enhanced by the Human Rights Act.

Then on 14 Oct 2002 three appeal court judges have upheld the Daily Mirror's challenge to a High Court ruling in favour of supermodel Naomi Campbell's breach of confidentiality claim. The court quashed the finding of breach of confidence and withdrew the £3,500 damages ...

This is a preview of the whole essay